Split in the Democratic Party

[REDWAVE]

We live in a time of crisis. A crisis which is ever deepening and intensifying, and is about to escalate greatly when the full-scale assault on Iraq begins, likely in January. The underlying causes of the crisis are economic: the global "recession" resulting from the collapse of the stock market bubble of the 1990's. But the widespread and increasing poverty, unemployment, and massive inequality manifest themselves in the social and political system as well.

In particular, the Democratic Party may well be torn apart by the crisis. In the recent vote on the Iraq war resolution, the Dems split badly, in both the House and the Senate, between their right wing and their left. The Democratic leadership-- Daschle and Gephardt-- came down in support of Bush and war, totally discrediting themselves as leaders of any real opposition party. Daschle in particular could have stopped the war resolution, but didn't. Gephardt saw a majority of his own Democratic congresspersons vote against him. Both's days are numbered, and the number is fairly small.

Centrifugal forces are pulling the Democratic Party apart. This is because of its peculiar role as the left front for capitalism: the party of big business which pretends to be on the side of the "common man." Daschle is a major point man for Citigroup on the heavily pro-debtor, anti-creditor bankruptcy "reform" bill, which still has not become law. In supporting war, Gephardt and Daschle were obeying the dictates of their corporate masters. However, the left wing of the Democratic Party was marching to the "beat of a different drum": the large and rapidly growing popular opposition to Bush, the war, and his failure to do anything meaningful to solve the economic crisis. The major figures in this wing of the party are Barbara Boxer, Russell Feingold, Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and Cynthia McKinney (who, although soon out of Congress, is not necessarily gone from politics). Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy are both dinosaurs, although in very different ways.

Hillary Clinton has displayed the famed Clinton slickness by covering both bases on this highly controversial issue. She voted for the resolution, but talked it down. She has positioned herself to go either way. Whether her obviously hypocritical posturing will work is another story.

At this point, there are several different possible scenarios. However, the most likely ones all seem to involve a major internal fight within the Democratic Party, and maybe even a split. A lot will depend on whether the donkeys lose control of the Senate, totally discrediting Daschle's leadership even on a pragmatic level. One thing is for sure: the 2004 Democratic National Convention should be very interesting, and definitely NOT business as usual.

So should be the election that year-- that is, if there is one.

 

[Ishmael]

Well

You always come out with a grain of truth REDWAVE, I have to hand you that.

The Democrats pro big business. Why should that surprise anyone?

They have to be pro big business. The have two core constituencies to serve that dictate their actions. I'm speaking of the Unions and the Trial Lawyers. Neither can thrive without big business. Big business is the source of much of their power and income. Any measure that is good for big business allows the collective bargainers and the litigators to demand more money. Otherwise, the goose that laid the golden egg would be killed. For 70 years the Democrats have successfully labled the Republicans and pro big business. The Republicans are acutally more small business oriented. But small business's don't have big court paydays and are not organized by the Unions. Therefore, small business is NOT a favorite of the Democrats.

I'm glad that you have finally acknowedged the truth, or at least part of it. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Ishmael

 

[HeavyStick]

Re: Well

I'm pleasantly surprised.

Ishmael

And you have the nerve to yell at me for feeding trolls.

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Well

And you have the nerve to yell at me for feeding trolls.

Oh, REDWAVE isn't a troll. He just thinks he is sometimes.

Ishmael

 

[SilvaTungDevil]

Fuck yeah. I'm moving here.

 

[REDWAVE]

GOP for small business?

Both the Democrats and the Republicans receive the bulk of their contributions from big corporations. The corporate "donors" (influence buyers) prefer the Republicans, of course, but they can live with the Democrats. And the Dems sure aren't doing anything to stand up for unions. They should be screaming their heads off in protest against Bush's strike-breaking against the longshoremen and collusion with the PMA-- but they're not.

One possible result of the current crisis is the long-overdue emergence of a mass socialist party in the U.S., formed from an alliance of anti-war Democrats and the Greens.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Re: Re: Re: Well

Oh, REDWAVE isn't a troll. He just thinks he is sometimes.

Ishmael

Translation: When Redwave is anti-democrat he is not a troll by Ishmael rules. All other times he is teh filthy trollman.

 

[Sandia]

The major figures in this wing of the party are Barbara Boxer, Russell Feingold, Paul Wellstone, Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and Cynthia McKinney (who, although soon out of Congress, is not necessarily gone from politics). Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy are both dinosaurs, although in very different ways.

Lloyd Doggett - the Congressman from my district - acted as the unofficial whip in the House for the "No" vote on Bush's war plan. According to the paper, no one expected the opposition to be as strong as it was. Reading that, I had my most democratic moment ever.

 

[70/30]

Where's the division?

Did anyone see John Edwards D-NC, Lincoln Chafee R-RI, and Chuck Hagel R-NE on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition? Talk came to the economy. There are moderate Republicans (true conservatives, not Reaganites like GWB) and as Chafee showed on the Iraq vote, some will be willing to "vote their conscience".

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0210/13/le.00.html

CALLER: I would like to know how the president can possibly make a case going against -- going to Iraq to go to war when none of the neighbors want to go, yet our economy is tanking. I think that he's deflecting that to go to war.

BLITZER: All right, let me ask Senator Edwards. He says basically how can the U.S. go to war when the economy is tanking?

EDWARDS: Well, we have -- the president's responsibility and the Congress' responsibility is to be able to do two things at once. I mean, the president has focused abroad, and he's not done anything about a very serious problem that's affecting the lives of the American people, which is the economy.

We've lost 2 million jobs, over 2 million jobs. Over $400 billion lost in pension funds in this country, biggest stock market drop since Herbert Hoover. I mean, we need to do some very specific things.

In my judgment, the president should call the Congress and the Congress should respond, both now and be willing to come back after the election, to do something about this economy.

For example, my idea is to that we give a $500 energy refund to families.

BLITZER: What about making these tax cuts permanent, which is what the president says, a top priority should be get more money in the hands of the American taxpayers?

EDWARDS: I think, Wolf, two things. First, we need a short-term shot in the arm. I would give a $500 refund to each family for these increased energy costs they're going to see this winter. We can extend unemployment insurance. We can have bonus depreciation for businesses to cause them to buy more capital goods than they might otherwise. Help for the states. Those are short-term things we can do.

But over the long term, we have to get back on the path to fiscal responsibility. And the only way to do that, the only way to do that, in my judgment, is to roll back the top layer of the president's tax cut and not let it go into effect in 2004 for the richest 1 percent of Americans.

BLITZER: Senator Hagel, is that a good idea? HAGEL: I don't agree with that. I think, in fact, we should play out those tax cuts for the reason that those of us who voted for those cuts...

BLITZER: Make them permanent, you mean?

HAGEL: ... make them permanent, because I do think it is the private sector that is the productive arm of our society. It's the private sector that generates productivity and jobs and wealth. It's not government.

I think the president is going to have to focus on the economy. I think this thing is starting to tilt very much the wrong way, at least the perception of Americans, that the president is not paying attention. He is going to have to pay attention.

Obviously, as Senator Edwards said, the Congress, the president will need, does need, do need to address many different priorities at the same time. But I fear that we are so hell bent on the Iraqi war invasion that this is going to hurt the president for the long term as well.

BLITZER: Politically speaking?

HAGEL: Politically speaking, in every way.

And I would say one other thing that we could do in the Congress, and that is get an energy bill out of the conference committee and vote on that this week. That would help us, because it is productivity, and all the pieces that go into driving productivity like energy that would make the difference.

BLITZER: Senator Chafee, Senator Edwards says roll back the tax cuts for the richest that were passed last year. Senator Hagel says that's not a good idea. What do you say?

CHAFEE: Well, I think I'm the only one here that voted against them, the tax cuts. I knew at the time we can't afford this...

EDWARDS: No, you're not the only one.

CHAFEE: Is that right?

EDWARDS: I did, too.

CHAFEE: OK, I'm sorry. I stand corrected. I'm sorry.

But at the time, I thought we can't afford these. Let's see how we go with the economy. $1.6 trillion, $1.5 trillion whatever it ended up, it's just too deep. And we've so worked so hard over the years to create surpluses, let's be very careful about them.

And I do think Wall Street pays attention to what we do in Washington and reacts whether we're handling our finances, and it has a confidence level of how we're dealing with our financial issues, and it relates to Wall Street. And if we're irresponsible, they lose confidence in what we're doing and the market's affected.

We haven't been good at our spending. If we're going to have the tax cuts, the theory was let's strangle the spending, but we haven't. It's out of control.

BLITZER: Senator Chafee, you know, there's been a lot of speculation, I'm sure you've seen it certainly in Rhode Island, that since you vote very often like a Democrat, maybe it's time for you to leave the Republican Party and become a Democrat, or an independent for that matter.

CHAFEE: Well, I think the president was elected running as a moderate. He ran as a uniter, and that's where his popularity came from. And so I think I'm representing the true moderate, mainstream of the Republican Party.

BLITZER: Are you staying...

CHAFEE: I'm planning to stay there. Happy here.

BLITZER: When you say you're planning to stay there, that doesn't sound like a Shermannesque kind of statement.

CHAFEE: How strong can I say it? I'm a Republican, I'm a staying Republican.

BLITZER: Well, that sounds pretty strong.

Senator Daschle -- and I want to play this sound bite for you, Senator Hagel -- he's jumping aboard this economic bandwagon, too, saying the Republicans, the president is not doing enough. I want you to listen to what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: Show the American people that you have an economic plan. You've indicated a concern for regime change in Iraq. I think you ought to consider a regime change in your economic counsels in the administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: As you know, a lot of people are hurting out there, economically speaking. I'm sure a lot of people in Nebraska are as well. Is it time for a regime change in the economic counsels of his administration?

HAGEL: Well, I have touched upon this over the last few months, that maybe we should have a new team over there regarding his economic policies. I think it's something he's going to have to take a hard look at here, right after the election.

BLITZER: Paul O'Neill, for example, the treasury secretary?

HAGEL: Well, I'm not going to get into names. But let me go back to something my two colleagues said here about tax cuts and about all the issues of spending and accountability.

I think both my colleagues are right in this sense, that into the next two years, the Congress and the president is going to have to come forward and be very honest with the American people on prioritizing what it is that's most important. We cannot afford to continue to spend at the rate we're spending at over the last two years in this conservative -- beg your pardon, moderate Republican president's first two years.

And yes, I think it's been required, homeland security, defense buildup, all focusing on our homeland security.

We've got major Medicare, Social Security, prescription drug problems out there that we're going to have to address. That's going to take money.

And we're going to have to be honest to the American people, the president and the Congress over the next two years, where our priorities are going to be. That is going to affect the tax issue and the spending issue. So, we've got a lot of work ahead of us.

BLITZER: Senator Edwards, when you said roll back some of those tax cuts, let's get into specifics right now. Because, you know, a lot of Democrats, especially some of the Democrats who are thinking of running for the presidency -- I know you're thinking about it as well -- have been reluctant to say roll back those tax cuts.

So why have you decided now to come out in favor?

EDWARDS: Well, I've already come out in favor of doing something about this, Wolf. I think it is impossible just on the spending side, as Chuck as just suggested.

He's right, we need to have real spending caps. Lincoln mentioned it too. And we need to enforce those spending caps. And we ought to make the middle class, the middle part of the tax cut permanent for all Americans.

BLITZER: So make that permanent, keep all those...

EDWARDS: Make that permanent.

BLITZER: At what level specifically would you cut it off?

EDWARDS: The part of the top layer of the tax cut, the top two rates which apply to the top 1 percent of Americans. We cannot...

BLITZER: Immediately roll those back?

EDWARDS: They're scheduled to go into effect in 2004, not have them go into effect.

Unless we step to the plate and do something about that, it is impossible to get us off this deficit tract, back on the path to fiscal responsibility.

And as Senator Chafee just suggested, send a clear signal to the American people and to the markets both domestic and international that we have control of our fiscal agenda."

 

[SINthysist]

Good gawd RED, I've been saying that and pointing it out for about three to four months now.

Did it JUST soak in?

 

[REDWAVE]

Saying what?

Once again, you've lost me, SIN. Saying what? This split in the Dems just manifested itself recently, over the issue of war with Iraq.

 

[70/30]

Republicans have and will continue to develop a split, Reaganites vs. Moderates. GWB refuses to fire anyone that can't hack it (Thomas White, Ashcroft, Paul O'Neill, himself) the true fiscal conservatives believe in responsibility, not trickle down half answers.

 

[Sandia]

Supposedly there's already a split in the Republican party over Bush's war agenda: the old-line Republicans v. the neo-cons, and those with military experience - like Powell v. those without - Bush, Cheney, etc.

 

[REDWAVE]

Fatcats split?

Now I don't know what you guys are talking about. Sure, there's some internal disagreements within the Republican Party, but the GOPers in Congress were virtually unanimous on the war vote. Only six Republican Congresspersons and one Repub. Senator voted against it. Besides, the Republicans generally have much better party discipline than the Democrats, because of their narrower and more cohesive social base. As Will Rogers once said: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Every system in America (judicial, economic, political) is adversarial. You're being dopey, REDWAVE. You smell national insurrection if Roeper doesn't agree with Ebert. "Didja hear? 'Sweet Home Alabama' got a thumbs down! To the barricades!"

 

[REDWAVE]

Dopey

Nice visual, DCL. You're wrong, BTW-- I'm out of pot until Friday.


And if I'm Dopey, which one are you? Grumpy?

 

[70/30]

Re: Fatcats split?

Now I don't know what you guys are talking about. Sure, there's some internal disagreements within the Republican Party, but the GOPers in Congress were virtually unanimous on the war vote. Only six Republican Congresspersons and one Repub. Senator voted against it. Besides, the Republicans generally have much better party discipline than the Democrats, because of their narrower and more cohesive social base. As Will Rogers once said: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

I don't care that much about the war, just as long as a nuclear holocaust doesn't start. The democratic isn't the "Peace at all cost Party", GWB wanting to rush into WAR makes it look that way. If the Senate goes 52-47-1 to the GOP, Lincoln Chafee did split on the war and said he will be a moderate/uniter voter. Hagel vocally and visibly split with the administration on the war until very recently and he gave creedence to Daschle's call for "an economic counsels regime change". He also worked closely with McCain and Feingold on campaign finance reform until he turned into a turncoat, he's not a gurantee GWB vote. There are moderates (people with a brain) in congress, the biggest concern should be which side controls the senate judiciary committee. BTW, during that particular interview John Edwards looked like a liberal that could appeal to the middle very well.

 

[SINthysist]

Splits in core constituencies RED.

People like Sir Charles who are finally figuring some things out on their own.

Like the split between blue-collar Democrats, who are dissappearing and white collar Democrats.

Incidently. Just saw a poll which shows 69% of America thinks Hillary should not run for president... So much for a Clinton third term. Why are they still running the party? This also puts a lot of pressure on the parties whom both are used to loosers (and with the defeat of Algore, McAuliffe and the Clintons ARE loosers) stepping aside for the next set of leaders. There is not one George Washington in the bunch.

The split is between those who want to be Democrats and those who want to turn back the clock to October 1999...

 

[SINthysist]

The Democrats are so inept right now, that they've started bagging on the economy at precisely the point in which it's recovery is beginning.

They will be drawing attention to something that is improving...

That's GOOD strategy!

 

[REDWAVE]

Jobless "recovery"

Yeah, the economy's doing just great, SIN-- that's why so many people are out of work and hurting financially. Sheesh-- is Kansas on another planet or something?

 

[70/30]

The split is between those who want to be Democrats and those who want to turn back the clock to October 1999...

Better than having a split between those who want to be Republicans and those who want to turn back the clock to 1984 (bad pun intended)...

 

[SINthysist]

Demodilemma, GOPportunity
John L. Perry
Monday, Oct. 14, 2002

The reason so many armadillos end up as Interstate road kill is their automatic defense reaction – jump into the air when startled. Same for Democrats.

There was a beautiful illustration of this self-destruct response by Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle when interviewed recently on Fox News Channel by Tony Snow.

It was amazing in the first place that Daschle would consent to appear on that cable-news program to be under the penetrating, but fair, questioning by Snow, who knows his subject matter. Daschle is accustomed to softball set-up questions from leftist pseudo journalists.

Both Daschle and Snow deserve credit for this atypical appearance.

Explaining the Inexplicable

Snow was probing Daschle as to why he had come around, so late in the game, to supporting President Bush's resolution authorizing the United States to go to war with Iraq if the commander in chief decided it was necessary to protect the country.

And Daschle was giving a tamed-down rehash of his previous heel-dragging reservations and "concerns." He then said as things developed he felt that it was now necessary to give the president this authority.

With so much of his own party, in both houses of Congress, lining up in support of Bush on this issue, Daschle found himself in the position of the Chinese general who awoke to discover his troops were marching off without him. As their "leader," he hurried to the head of the column.

How to Activate an Armadillo

Bored with this weaseling spin, Snow turned the questioning to the congressional Democrats' confab on the economy, which began that day (too bad for them, that's when the stock market took a healthy hop upward).

Daschle was his usual tranquil, smiling self, expressing "concern" and wishing for more "debate on this issue" – a public confession that the Democrats on Capitol Hill have absolutely no economic program of their own to offer after all these months of a sluggish economy.

In the middle of a sentence, Snow uttered two words that lit a serious firecracker under Daschle.

Anything but That

Crashing in to interrupt Snow, and in a voice fraught with anxiety, Daschle blurted out: "Absolutely not!"

If ever a spring-loaded armadillo shot straight upward when frightened, this was one.

The two words that sent into the air the Democrats' No. 1 man in the Senate – and himself a presidential hopeful somewhere down the line – were (are you certain you're ready for such language?) "increased taxes."

The Demodilemma

Within that armadillo's plated hide lies the dilemma that won't turn the Democrats loose. It goes like this:

There's no way under the sun Democrats are going to beat President Bush on war and terrorist-defense issues. The 77-23 vote in the Senate and 296-133 vote in the House of Representatives backing the president on war with Iraq made that reality resoundingly clear.

That leaves only the economy. Yet the Democrats have zip for an economic-recovery plan. Republicans have one – not much better than nothing, but it's something, which in politics always beats nothing.

More Means More Taxes

The only answers to anything economic that the Democrats have these days are social programs that call for the expenditure of additional billions of tax dollars.

With no surplus of already-collected tax funds sitting around just waiting to be spent, the only possible source for more tax funds to spend on social programs is the imposition of new and increased taxes.

To advocate that is certain political disaster – especially in a time of war. If it takes more money to wage this war, and it likely will, the American people will not celebrate, but they will understand and support higher taxes.

The Lesson of Lyndon

What they won't tolerate is President Lyndon B. Johnson's disastrous "guns and butter" policy during the Vietnam War. Higher expenditures for social programs during wartime ran LBJ out of office and wrecked the American economy for years.

This is why Daschle's armadillo reflex kicked in at the very mention of higher taxes.

If the radical-left forces now in control of the Democratic Party nationally persist in pressing for more social-program spending (translation: higher taxes) the same thing will happen to that political party as happens to armadillos along Interstate highways when roaring 18-wheelers abruptly straddle them.

The GOPportunity

When Tom Daschle almost came out of his chair in the Tony Snow interview, that said it all.

If the Republican Party fails to take advantage of this obvious opportunity presented by the Democrats' dilemma and withdraws within its shell like a timid tortoise wandered onto the asphalt, it will deserve to join the ranks of road kill.


John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for NewsMax.com.

 

[REDWAVE]

Can't you think on your own?

My, you C&P well, SIN. I guess it's too much of a strain to think for yourself and write your own material.

Also, it's intellectually dishonest (to say the least) to cut and paste an article without even stating the source.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Well

Originally posted by Ishmael
... I'm glad that you have finally acknowedged the truth, or at least part of it. I'm pleasantly surprised.

Ishmael

Don't be surpried. From previous posts, I seriously doubt this revelation of truth was born of either intent of cognizant awareness.

His reference to the longshoremen strike should suffice as evidence.